Braham Prakash Vs Additional Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST demand order alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that no personal hearing was granted before passing the impugned order dated 21 January 2025 and that the Show Cause Notice dated 23 July 2024 was uploaded beyond the limitation period. The Revenue submitted that the impugned order was appealable and involved serious allegations of fake ITC.
On examining the record, the Court noted that the investigation by the DGGI, Rohtak, pertained to an alleged network of 18 fake firms created to obtain ITC, with documents seized and statements recorded during the investigation. It was observed that 374 entities had allegedly transacted with these firms, including the petitioner, leading to issuance of the show cause notice and passing of the demand order.
The Court reiterated its consistent view that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised in cases involving alleged fraudulent availment of ITC, which entail complex factual issues, voluminous evidence, and detailed departmental findings. Emphasis was placed on balancing the burden on the exchequer and the impact on the GST regime against the safeguards available to taxpayers through statutory appeals.
